Human Rights

Pursuant to notice of June 2, 2026, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be authorized to examine and report on the means of increasing democratic inclusion and strengthening democratic resilience, with attention to the possible expansion of the right to vote under Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.”;

That, in particular, the committee examine:

1.the constitutional and legislative evolution of the right to vote in Canada, and the alignment of current requirements with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada’s international human rights obligations, within the context of potential franchise expansion;

2.the ways of removing barriers to democratic inclusion faced by First Nations, Métis and Inuit, Black, gender-diverse, racialized and other marginalized youth, and the potential impact of their inclusion on democracy in Canada;

3.the information available on voting or other participatory decision-making arrangements in Canada and other jurisdictions that include members younger than 18;

4.the administrative and operational readiness of federal election machinery to support the possible enfranchisement of younger citizens, including voter registration and information systems, the National Register of Electors and the National Register of Future Electors; and

5.the evidence on strategies to foster lifelong democratic participation, including the integration of effective civic literacy within education systems and digital environments;

That the committee be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit reports on this study with the Clerk of the Senate, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the reports be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate; and

That the committee submit its final report on this study to the Senate no later than March 31, 2027, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

She said: Honourable senators, I stand to ask you to support my motion to authorize the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights to study the means of increasing democratic inclusion and strengthening democratic resilience and to report back to this chamber by March 31, 2027. I note that the committee can extend the report date with the agreement of the Senate.

You will recall that last Thursday evening, with only my motion left, the Senate was adjourned. I welcome this opportunity to speak to this motion so close to the imminent summer adjournment of Parliament and my mandatory retirement.

I have assured Senator Moreau and Senator Housakos that I’m looking forward to the conversation that we might have this evening on the merits of this motion and the question of whether this motion is of the same substance as Bill S-222, should they choose to pursue the question.

The term “same in substance” is key to the useful principle in the “same question rule” that protects the time and attention of this chamber so that questions already determined in that session of Parliament cannot be revisited.

Colleagues, the “same question rule” uses the singular “question.” The rule does not prevent further deliberation by senators on a related topic of their choice, particularly when it is much broader than the question. When a study on the topic — in this case, democratic resilience and inclusion for Canada — has been offered, at most, in such a study, expanding voting rights to include 16- and 17-year-olds is one possibility of a great many other ways and means, many not requiring any new laws, that merit the time and attention of senators, who are central to the viability of our democracy. An expanded study of various democratic resilience measures is much bigger and much broader than a single bill to make a single legal change.

Is such a study, as is being proposed here, the same in substance as a bill to make only one change? No. The committee study does not culminate in any legislation and in no way seeks the same result as a vote on a bill.

The question in Bill S-222 was a legislative judgment. The study order of reference that I’m requesting now is an investigative mandate.

Senator Carignan said:

Honourable senators, I’m somewhat sad to say that I will be voting against Bill S-222. However, I will wholeheartedly support any effort to further explore this issue through a committee study.

And Senator Moncion said:

After eight years of trying, perhaps we should look into other alternatives. That could mean a study in committee. The committee could send its report to the House of Commons, where it could serve as a guide should the House wish to use the arguments set out therein to amend the Canada Elections Act. . . .

Clearly, these two senators — who voted against the bill — nevertheless made the point about the value of the Senate having a thorough study of this question. That is, indeed, the same in substance were such a study to be proposed, but that is not what I have placed before you this evening for your consideration. I’m talking about our democracy. Democratic resilience and democratic inclusion are two aspects of ways in which we could be looking at the future of our democracy through the resources that this chamber has that really are not rivalled anywhere.

You know I come from academia, and I can assure you that Senate studies both have credibility and are considered citable sources in academic research. A study of this kind could make a very positive difference on a very large scale for our country and for our democracy.

I would like to also remind a number of senators who are in the chamber this evening that you were all invited to — and many of you did attend — the round table that I convened here in the Senate, where I invited Canada’s top researchers on democracy, on the much broader question, the broader issues of our democracy.

When I came up with this idea, it was because I realized that in a number of countries in Europe — including, of course, countries where changes have been made to expand voting rights — the research was far better and far deeper than anything that we really have here in Canada. So, I came up with this idea of inviting our top experts in our country to come here to meet each other and talk with each other. Indeed, they did, in November.

In planning this, I was told that there are about 24 known experts in this country, including 5 research chairs, on various aspects of democracy. I was also advised by my academic adviser that we would be lucky if we had 8 to 10 of them show up. Indeed, of those invited, 23 out of the 24 recognized experts in this country came to the round table. A number of them, at breaks and whatnot, said — and some of them said in their remarks — that this was the first time that there had been a gathering of this sort for them in Canada. Indeed, a number of them observed that it was the first time they had met each other.

To be able to sit around a Senate table with so many senators sitting with them, listening, asking questions and engaging was considered by many of these experts to be a very strong incentive for them to look at other questions that had been raised by colleagues. It’s the kind of conversation that creates a far deeper understanding of possibilities. It’s looking to the future. It’s asking questions about what we are doing. It’s exploring ways in which things have happened in other countries.

What I’m describing here, colleagues, is what we do when the Senate decides to study something. So, it is my hope, knowing that our academic experts in this country are already positive about Senate initiatives and already willing to participate, and knowing also, as I do, that international experts are very prepared to provide even more information. Perhaps in some ways most importantly, I know — I guarantee — that there are young people in this country from many different racialized communities, young people of diversity in every aspect of diversity that you could name, who care deeply about our democracy, who are worried about the legacy that we are leaving for them and who very much want to and are ready to engage with senators in dialogue, in exchange.

This motion is asking you to support what the Senate does best — to reach out, to welcome, to make it possible for different points of view from different parts of our country and different parts of the world to be heard, to be respected, to be documented and then to be shared in ways that can only be positive for strengthening our democracy.

Colleagues, I would ask that you consider this motion, and I would ask for your support this evening.